Monthly Archives: September 2016

Listen Liberal

Review of “Listen Liberal” by Thomas Frank (ISBN 9781925228885)

This book explains when the Democratic Party decided to abandon organized labor, befriend Wall Street, and embrace the professional, instead of the working, class. It explains how Bill Clinton put a bullet in the head of an already-injured New Deal, ushered in a new era of “meritocracy” and its close friend, social and economic inequality. It explains how and why all of Obama’s “best and brightest” simply ended up doing what the Republicans had done before them. It explains why — even in Bright Blue states like Rhode Island and Massachusetts — economic inequality has not been addressed or repaired by Democrats. It takes us from Boston to Fall River, one of the poorest cities just a short ride away. It looks at the record of Duval Patrick, once an “Obama Lite” governor, one who started his professional career at Ameriquest and ended up at Bain Capital.

But Democrats can’t help it. This is who they are. Clinton the First, Clinton the Second, Obama, and many other “meritocracy” Democrats draw Frank’s scrutiny. Their friends, the Eric Schmidts, Bill Gates, and Mark Zuckerbergs, are their idols. Their shared values are with pharmaceutical magnates and software developers, hedge fund managers and dot.com billionaires. Long gone are Democratic friendships with captains of organized labor such as the teamsters or the teachers. Half the time Democrats at war with Labor (think Rahm Emanuel’s and Arne Duncan’s attacks on teachers). The New Democrats are nothing like FDR’s allies of the common man. Instead, they are smug, well-fed, well-educated functionaries, “gatekeepers” who serve the ruling class yet still like to think of themselves as the Democrats of their fathers’ generation — all while betraying them.

They are a separate economic class — themselves neither fish nor fowl, workers nor oligarchs. They have no idea where their allegiances lie. They think they’re voting for the common man but they live, dress, and eat better — and then they wonder why their noble gestures aren’t appreciated.

Frank concludes his book with this:

“It is time to face the obvious: that the direction the Democrats have chosen to follow for the last few decades has been a failure for both the nation and for their own partisan health.”Failure” is admittedly a harsh word, but what else are we to call it when the left party in a system chooses to confront an epic economic breakdown by talking hopefully about entrepreneurship and innovation? When the party of professionals repeatedly falls for bad, self-serving ideas like bank deregulation, the “creative class,” and empowerment through bank loans? When the party of the common man basically allows aristocracy to return?

Now, all political parties are alliances of groups with disparate interests, but the contradictions in the Democratic Party coalition seem unusually sharp. The Democrats posture as the “party of the people” even as they dedicate themselves ever more resolutely to serving and glorifying the professional class. Worse: they combine self-righteousness and class privilege in a way that Americans find stomach-turning. And every two years, they simply assume that being non-Republicans is sufficient to rally the voters of the nation to their standard. This cannot go on.

Yet it will go on, because the most direct solutions to the problem are off the table for the moment. The Democrats have no interest in reforming themselves in a more egalitarian way. There is little the rest of us can do, given the current legal arrangements of this country, to build a vital third-party movement or to revive organized labor, the one social movement that is committed by its nature to pushing back against the inequality trend.

What we can do is strip away the Democrats’ precious sense of their own moral probity – to make liberals live without the comforting knowledge that righteousness is always on their side. It is that sensibility, after all, that prevents so many good-hearted rank-and-file Democrats from understanding how starkly and how deliberately their political leaders contradict their values. Once that contradiction has been made manifest – once that smooth, seamless sense of liberal virtue has been cracked, anything becomes possible. The course of the party and the course of the country can both be changed, but only after we understand that the problem is us.”

I would also add — don’t automatically give your vote to a party that hasn’t earned it.

Exceptional Autocracy

American Exceptionalism is an article of faith of both Republicans and Democrats, even Liberals. In the eyes of many Americans our global dominance is proof that God conferred special blessings on us. Sending American “peacekeeping forces” to drop bombs on one more country is as natural as Friday night football or fast food. Being the world’s cop is seen as a right and a responsibility – sort of an updated version of Kipling’s “White Man’s Burden.” The world is filled with children and somebody has to be the grownup.

E.J. Dionne’s piece, reprinted from the Washington Post (“Americans are deciding for the world,” September 23rd) is no exception. Dionne begins his piece with a tip of the hat to American Exceptionalism – the Presidential election “will be a choice on behalf of the entire world” – and then he argues that we need a president who doesn’t believe in authoritarianism. But the choice of president is not nearly as important as the authoritarianism the United States cultivates – elsewhere.

We’ve never been shy about supporting dictators like Augusto Pinochet, undermining another country’s elections, or supporting military occupations – as we did in South Africa and still do in the West Bank. Our military is in more than 150 other nations. We can ensure “compliance” from those who would cross us with sanctions, bunker busters, cruise missiles, drones, or nuclear weapons. We have a permanent veto in the United Nations and we can use international organizations to pressure others into supporting our wars – or we can just ignore them altogether. We send our enemies to the International Court of Justice – but we won’t be bound by it ourselves.

There’s a pretty thin line separating autocracy from a belligerent superpower. One is a bully in his own country; the other in the whole world. So it’s hardly a surprise when a global bully starts growing them at home.

E.J. Dionne says he’s concerned that “allowing Trump to win would strengthen the autocratic Vladimir Putin in Russia and the far right in Europe with which he is now allied.” While Russian nationalism is every bit as toxic as the American variety, Russia has actually been historically opposed to fascism. Emerging fascist elements in the Ukraine and Poland, where American concern for democracy comes second to installing missile systems, alarms Russia.

If the United States were truly interested in weakening autocratic regimes – other than by turning dictatorships into failed states, as we have done with bi-partisan resolve for 25 years – we might start by holding them accountable and taking away their allowances. Let’s make it known we won’t reward military dictatorships (sorry, Egypt). We won’t reward inhuman occupations (tough beans, Israel). We won’t give you any more missiles if your family-owned state is indistinguishable from ISIS or had something to do with 9/11 (I’m talking to you, Saudi Arabia).

And we might shut down our secret gulags and black sites while we’re at it. Those are for despots and autocrats, not for supposed democracies.

Let’s not kid ourselves. The next American election is a choice between a con man who would just love to try out the knobs and dials of foreign policy and military power – and another who has already used them to make the world a more dangerous place – and who has no qualms about pushing them again. Neither of these two candidates is any less lethal than the other, nor any more dedicated to democracy for the rest of the world. Hillary Clinton demonstrated American tone-deafness best when she addressed the VFW recently: “You may wonder how anyone could disagree, but in fact my opponent in this race has said very clearly that he thinks American exceptionalism is insulting to the rest of the world.” Well, it is.

Americans do not make choices “on behalf of the world.” We make choices in our own interests that often harm the rest of the world. Like Clinton, we can feign astonishment that being a bully is unacceptable to the rest of the world – but ultimately we just don’t care what the other kids think.

And, anyway, what are they going to do about it?

Saving Democracy

Odds-makers, pollsters, and pundits are already calling the election for Clinton. It’s hard to see how they are wrong. By even the most conservative models, Hillary Clinton’s chances of winning are 60% and she already has her requisite 270 electoral college votes.

But that’s not to say the election won’t be close. It’s going to be a long, long night.

But in the end we will all be safe from too much regulation of the financial industry, single-payer healthcare, shielding college students from crushing debt, or having to rethink American foreign policy – in short, all the policies that continue to fail us.

Drones will continue to kill civilians in a growing assortment of Middle Eastern countries – and radicalize them, Saudi Arabia will continue to unload weaponry from US defense contractors, Israel will continue to cash the US checks permitting it to continue to expand its settlements, and Egypt will continue to sentence journalists and dissidents to death.

Police forces will continue to receive military upgrades and spying gear, whistleblowers will continue to be harassed, Justice Department dollars will continue to be spent on programs for the preferential hiring of veterans to police Black neighborhoods. Life for hedge fund managers, tech entrepreneurs and the rest of the meritocracy will continue to be rosy, even as globalism and deregulation suck more and more jobs from less-skilled American workers.

In the years to follow the election, appointments to the Supreme Court will continue to be contentiously opposed, and compromise and accommodation will have citizens wondering where the appointees’ loyalties really lie.

In the end, the lumbering financial, military and social apparatus will continue on auto-pilot, no matter which party actually wins.

But throughout the land, on election night in 2016, Democrats (and even a few Republicans) will breathe deep sighs of relief.

They’ll tell themselves: Democracy, or some version of it, has been saved.

Among Strange Victims

Review of “Among Strange Victims” by Daniel Saldaña París, Christina MacSweeney (Translation) (ISBN 9781566894302)

Among Strange Victims has an unlovable protagonist who is content with his peeling walls and his boring daily rituals. He apparently told his family he was attending college but dropped out almost immediately. The description of his day is boring in the extreme, and unfortunately this does not make for good fiction. As he puts it, “one of my strengths is an ability to enjoy the most trivial situations intensely.” Sadly, most readers do not have this same strength.

Our lazy protagonist, who doesn’t even bother to identify himself at the beginning of his story, spends considerable time on a “disintegrating” bench in a gazebo, watching people. When he is not doing this he is working in a museum editing press releases and proofreading the catalog. In one chapter we learn how he goes to a cafe, has a cup of tea and returns home with the soggy tea bag, which he hangs on the wall. Gripping narrative – this is not. At about this point the reader is ready to stretch his arms a couple of thousand miles and and throttle the author.

By the time the narrator has accumulated ten teabags on his wall, still not much has happened in the story, which until now has been a tale of boredom, shirking, and masturbation. And then he decides to save the life of a hen in the vacant lot next door. He throws a table into the lot, and goes down to position it as a suitable shelter. Which is when he discovers a grisly bag full of putrefying viscera.

But now we once again enter stagnant waters when his co-worker Cecilia is sent a prank marriage proposal in his name, and she accepts. For the first time we learn the narrator’s name: Rodrigo Saldivar.

The book goes on in his way for many hundreds of thousands of keystrokes, each of them more painful than the one before. There is the mystery of a turd on his bed. Then we meet a BolaÒo type academic slumming in Mexico, an elusive and dissolute philosopher-boxer the academic is studying while living with the narrator’s mother, and a shady gringo who bought a nubile young girl whose urine is used for rituals.

In the end not much is resolved, although we do finally learn who has deposited the turd on the bed.

I am not sure if my quarrel is with the work itself or with the translation, but it is neither an easy nor a pleasant, nor a rewarding read. I have limited patience for writers who, rather than invite you into their heads and hearts, try to keep you at arm’s length or deposit turds on the pages of the book you bought from them. The book has an intellectual conceit, but it’s a rather shallow one.

BTW, if you want to see another sample of SaldaÒa ParÌs’s writing, which demonstrates more talent than this first disaster of a novel, here is a piece he wrote for Electric Literature:

http://electricliterature.com/planes-flying-over-a-monster-the-writing-life-in-mexico-city-954a79f43165

For the giveaway pile.